My friends (I ask theirs to help) say that in castanets2 aotuv beta4 is better (aotuv have less pre-echo)but for me pre-echo is more audible in beta4, my friend say that I have anomalousear constitution . In all cases, Aoyumi thank for great job!!!

Very impressive...I wish I had sometimes this kind of determination to finish some of my projects...

BTW, I wonder...This test was made on classical music. And AFAI remember, classical, at least for mp3, was the easiest scenario. Is it true? If yes than is it possible that in case of other formats thisis also the case?

And a question totally againt HA rules (so answer in spirit of "possible", "not sure", etc. would be OK...): perhaps MPC still is on top when it comes to more demading music, industrial for example and such...

GuruboolezGreat test! Thanks. Surely I'll take its results in mind. But for me Musepack is enough. I don't think that I'll get much changing from MPC --standard to Lancer beta 4 at corresponding bitrate...AoyumiRegardless of my decisions you're doing it all right! Thank you too!

I can't help but think how the iTunes mpeg-4 AAC 160kbps VBR format tests up against these other encoders. Maybe someone will do a test using iTunes 5 and QuickTime 7. Just curious, why couldn't a 160kbps mpeg-4 AAC file be compared to others? I know the bitrate is lower than the others but does this cause a flaw in the tests?

I can't help but think how the iTunes mpeg-4 AAC 160kbps VBR format tests up against these other encoders. Maybe someone will do a test using iTunes 5 and QuickTime 7. Just curious, why couldn't a 160kbps mpeg-4 AAC file be compared to others? I know the bitrate is lower than the others but does this cause a flaw in the tests?

It makes the test more difficult to interpretate. If the codec tested at 160 kbps does worse than the others at higher bit rates (there is a reasonable chance this would happen), then one could always bring up the argument "but it used a lower bit rate", rendering the results meaningless. On the other hand, if the codec tested at 160 kpbs would do equal or better than the ones tested at higher bit rates, logic suggests that it would also do equal or better when tested at that same higher bit rate. So there is no reason to use 160 kbps.

Taking in account the amount of time such a test takes, and the large risk of getting an unuseable result, it would be better to test all codecs at the same bit rate.

I was just wondering if upping lame 3.97 to preset extreme or preset fast extreme will give enough of an improvement to beat mpc and vorbis at their current settings in this test with all test samples. pls comment on this